Welcome to a new issue of History of MD, a sporadically updated report of all IPOs and bond offerings posted in Market Discussion.Since 2006, 296 IPOs and 396 bond offerings have been posted. These were discussed in 2,306 threads with 77,745 replies.

As before, the data was compiled by gathering all threads posted to Market Discussion and manually picking all threads that seemed to be related to equities or bonds. The threads were then grouped by ticker and analyzed to generate the graph. Some of the work was automated, so the result is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate.

Posted - 2010.07.03 17:49:00 -
[3]
These have ALWAYS been incredibly fascinating to me. IPOs appear to be a lost art form now. I'd put this on EVE-WIKI with all the little charts and stuff, something of this quality should get it's own page on the Wiki..

Originally by:Shar TegralPS: Spare us the brown nose trolling that is the current fad.

If you say that because of my reply I was just joking, Damn it if it is seen as a complain. I was surprised by the length and format of the link, that's all. I appreciate the work and effort behind the graphs and it is a nice and simple way to take the pulse to MD, thanks.

Also I rarely troll (except maybe to troll the troll). I may be wrong or right in my statements or ways, but my intentions are pure :). I may be sometimes betrayed by my subconscious, but everytime I find myself replying without reason I delete the post.

Posted - 2010.07.03 23:11:00 -
[14]Edited by: Haskell on 03/07/2010 23:12:56Thanks for the praise, although I'm not doing this to get praised. Actually I'm trying to spawn a discussion on the state of the 'secondary' market, because that's what keeps me interested in EVE. (But I seem to fail every time. )

Originally by:SencneSIPOs appear to be a lost art form now.

Tbh in my opinion there are currently simply not a lot of things in EVE that naturally lead to IPO-style ventures. I believe the first IPOs were launched to set up POSs (ISS Marginis), because POSs were unaffordable back then. Today only few things are unaffordable for a single player, and it's really difficult to make more ISK from a lot of ISK while keeping a decent ROI. Even if one completely ignores the trust issue, I see little opportunities to invest in, because they're likely to succeed. It seems CCP needs to introduce something big, new, unaffordable, that is only manageable if multiple players join together. Then I'm sure the art of IPOs will quickly be rediscovered. Incarna?

Tbh in my opinion there are currently simply not a lot of things in EVE that naturally lead to IPO-style ventures. I believe the first IPOs were launched to set up POSs (ISS Marginis), because POSs were unaffordable back then. Today only few things are unaffordable for a single player, and it's really difficult to make more ISK from a lot of ISK while keeping a decent ROI. Even if one completely ignores the trust issue, I see little opportunities to invest in, because they're likely to succeed. It seems CCP needs to introduce something big, new, unaffordable, that is only manageable if multiple players join together. Then I'm sure the art of IPOs will quickly be rediscovered. Incarna?

Now THAT would be something I'd like to see. Something that would indeed take a combined force to work with. Though with the wealth of some of the players nowadays it would almost be scary seeing something that would be a challenge for more than 1 or 2 players .

And nice post, it's always very interesting looking at history. Especially EVE-History.

I myself actually enjoy studying Pre-History, but that's another discussion.

Originally by:HaskellI believe the first IPOs were launched to set up POSs (ISS Marginis), because POSs were unaffordable back then.

As always, thank you for doing this!

About POS - they were introduced in november 2004, and I am not sure there were many ipos back then actually, I am trying to look into that at the moment. What I have found so far is that POS were soon very common, which resulted in a crash in the price of both moon minerals and T2 components in mid-2005.

Posted - 2010.07.04 07:09:00 -
[17]
If you do an IPO and the venture succeeds you (as the manager) are usually worse off than you would have been with a fixed-rate bond.

If the venture fails to deliver and dividends fall significantly short of the interest rate you would have had to pay on a bond, you should expect to get flamed/lose reputation nevertheless (unless you are member of the MD elite).

The need of constant auditing to confirm the reported profits adds to the unattractiveness of IPOs.

Even with auditing it may be hard to distinguish between "honest" failure, failure through incompetence and theft/scam. Only people with a very solid track record prior to the IPO can be considered "free to fail".

In principle IPOs would make sense for risky business plans with managers who are unable/unwilling to carry all of the entrepreneurial risk by themselves.

Originally by:Cista2About POS - they were introduced in november 2004, and I am not sure there were many ipos back then actually, I am trying to look into that at the moment. What I have found so far is that POS were soon very common, which resulted in a crash in the price of both moon minerals and T2 components in mid-2005.

I found it very difficult to dig up IPOs before January 2006, but EGSE was announced in March 2006, and the EIB soon after. So there have had to be already a number of IPOs around before that.

This forum post contains a list of IPOs as of 2006-05-03, however all of these were launched in 2006. EGSE listed a subset of that list on 2006-04-23, so no IPOs from before 2006 as well. That makes me wonder why EGSE was started in the first place if there were apparently no IPOs around before its launch...

Originally by:Mme PinkertonIf you do an IPO and the venture succeeds you (as the manager) are usually worse off than you would have been with a fixed-rate bond.

But why were IPOs so popular back in 2006 then? Was it only role-playing fluff? There has to be a reason my IPOs felt more natural than simple loans.

I'd actually be interested in what people were investing in the early days of IPOs. The same game mechanics still have to be there today, right? Why was it attractive to invest into something back then which is not attractive today?

(Yes, I was around when POSs were introduced, but I was interested in other parts of EVE at that time. I believe I discovered MD in 2007.)

Originally by:HaskellEdited by: Haskell on 03/07/2010 23:12:56Thanks for the praise, although I'm not doing this to get praised. Actually I'm trying to spawn a discussion on the state of the 'secondary' market, because that's what keeps me interested in EVE. (But I seem to fail every time. )

The core issues are trust and expectations.

Investors wanted:- Trusted CEO- Full collateral- Relatively large monthly return, preferably fixed- Detailed business plan (whether that was healthy for the IPO or not)- Full audit of all characters (whether directly involved or not)- Monthly, if not weekly, extensive report on the IPO

With the above list it not only becomes a full time job to run an IPO, with you running all the risks, it also becomes a charity case. It takes less time and annoyance to run a bond.

An IPO imho should have no collateral and no fixed return. The CEO should have a fixed salary, anything beyond that should be payed out in dividends or used to increase the value of the IPO. If the CEO wants to retain control of the business he should retain 51% of the shares, paid with his own assets (characters used by the IPO also have value).

Originally by:HaskellI found it very difficult to dig up IPOs before January 2006, but EGSE was announced in March 2006, and the EIB soon after. So there have had to be already a number of IPOs around before that.

Investors wanted:- Trusted CEO- Full collateral- Relatively large monthly return, preferably fixed- Detailed business plan (whether that was healthy for the IPO or not)- Full audit of all characters (whether directly involved or not)- Monthly, if not weekly, extensive report on the IPO

Disagreeing.Trust is something that needs to be earned so trust i'd take off of that list.Same goes for full collateral wich is not more then 50% of the offers so not 'needed' specifically.And the same goes for the reports , they are not neccisary BUT welcomed by investors.Large returns is what people start with and once they have pre-mentioned trust they can lower that return BUT it needs to be a fixed return indeed in most cases.Investors like to know what they can expect from their investment.

What does seem the general rule is a business plan and an audit wich in my experience only is logic.All the rest is based on a case by case scenario.

Investors wanted:- Trusted CEO- Full collateral- Relatively large monthly return, preferably fixed- Detailed business plan (whether that was healthy for the IPO or not)- Full audit of all characters (whether directly involved or not)- Monthly, if not weekly, extensive report on the IPO

Disagreeing.Trust is something that needs to be earned so trust i'd take off of that list.Same goes for full collateral wich is not more then 50% of the offers so not 'needed' specifically.And the same goes for the reports , they are not neccisary BUT welcomed by investors.Large returns is what people start with and once they have pre-mentioned trust they can lower that return BUT it needs to be a fixed return indeed in most cases.Investors like to know what they can expect from their investment.

What does seem the general rule is a business plan and an audit wich in my experience only is logic.All the rest is based on a case by case scenario.

Flakeys, your points are true, and the other guy is a bit off, but so is this whole discussion

What Sencnes said is that ipos (with shares) is a lost art form, and she is right. Look around the MD and there is plenty of opportunities for investment, but they are bonds and the occasional investment fund like my own.

Originally by:flakeysDisagreeing.Trust is something that needs to be earned so trust i'd take off of that list.Same goes for full collateral wich is not more then 50% of the offers so not 'needed' specifically.And the same goes for the reports , they are not neccisary BUT welcomed by investors.Large returns is what people start with and once they have pre-mentioned trust they can lower that return BUT it needs to be a fixed return indeed in most cases.Investors like to know what they can expect from their investment.

What does seem the general rule is a business plan and an audit wich in my experience only is logic.All the rest is based on a case by case scenario.

Sure trust is earned but with the amount of 'scams' in the last couple of years by 'trusted' individuals, folks have gotten rather paranoid. There is no way a relatively new bloke/blokette will be able to start an IPO. Even regulars are looked at with utter distrust by a lot of folks that now hang around here (I blame the position of the forum).

The full+ collateral was at one point demanded by investors (the start of the end for IPOs imho), why would anyone go to all the trouble of running an IPO when you could as easily get a loan with full+ collateral? Do you see any (large) offerings without collateral?

Reports are good, but the demands MD placed on them was getting ridiculous, unless your an accountant... Not to mention that not everyone defines all the terms the same way, so the actual reports might not be as accurate as everyone hoped.

Business plans are of course a must, but often enough folks want specifics and even if discussed privately, they could really impact an IPO for the worst. If the business plan lacks specifics it generally gets blown out of the water.

A full audit for the characters involved isn't much of a problem, but characters that aren't involved? Not to mention that an audit costs isk and only affordable for the larger operations.

If you want a fixed return why not use a Bond, Bonds have less requirements and thus require less work. time = isk

It is simple supply and demand. There is too much demand and few supply. Bonds favour supply generally, as lendee retain the right to do whathever they want without giving explanations as long as they pay their monthly fee (not really, but they get much more freedom, as they own the business). The rates are very low, so that means more profit for the manager and a fixed return that is very easy to accomplish.

The only reason to launch public offerings nowadays is because the manager has advantadges at doing so or because the manager wants to experience a closer relation with his customers.T4U launched as an IPO because it has very tight profits and relatively high risk of said profits drastically changing, for good or bad (it was launched before the titan changes and everybody knew or believed titans were doomed to change sooner or later). It was in the interest of the manager to launch it as a public offering.

One Stop, on the contrary, changed from PO to bond because it was giving more than the strictly minimum necessary and it had the potential to make more money for the manager in that way.

Originally by:Krathos MorpheusOne Stop, on the contrary, changed from PO to bond because it was giving more than the strictly minimum necessary and it had the potential to make more money for the manager in that way.

LoW's One Stop IPO was unusual - it was purely a growth share with no dividends. Structuring the buyout as a bond was simpler for me. It eliminated one source of uncertainty for investors in a new operator.

Phoebe and I did consider an IPO for our joint venture. In the end we went for a bond while accepting that we may have to fund interest from our own pockets to start.

I do think there are opportunities for IPOs, especially pure capital growth.

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.